Random Assignment Method for Existing Courts,
, No Unconstitutional Elements Unlike the Democratic Party’s Proposal,
, Same Rules for Prohibiting New Case Assignments,
, Criticism: Just a “Specialized Court” in Name,
,
, The Supreme Court’s decision on the 18th to establish guidelines for specialized courts for nationally significant cases like treason and espionage is seen as a response to the imminent legislation led by the Democratic Party for setting up a court specializing in treason cases. Over a year since the illegal martial law incident on December 3rd, only one first-trial verdict has been made against former President Yoon Suk-yeol and others, leading to widespread criticism of Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae and Judge Ji Ki-yeon’s judiciary, prompting belated action to address the situation.
, The Supreme Court stated that it had accepted concerns raised in national court president meetings and national judicial representative meetings regarding the Democratic Party’s bill for a treason court and requests from the legal community for judicial promptness. The Supreme Court believes the guidelines, which involve assigning nationally significant cases at random before designating a specialized court, would alleviate concerns about trial delays due to defendants’ requests for constitutional reviews if the Democratic Party’s bill passes.
, The main difference between the guidelines and the Democratic Party’s bill is in how the specialized courts are formed. The Democratic Party’s version involves a recommendation committee made up of judges to nominate candidates for the specialized court, with the Chief Justice appointing them after a Supreme Court Judge meeting. The original bill’s inclusion of external figures in this committee raised constitutional concerns, leading to revisions. Additionally, the bill increased the number of specialized courts from four to five to address criticisms of violating random assignment principles.
, In contrast, the Supreme Court’s guidelines suggest first randomly assigning nationally significant cases to existing courts, then designating that court as a specialized court. This reflects criticisms from some in the legal field that the Democratic Party’s proposal still contains unconstitutional elements because it involves forming a court after identifying specific cases.
, Article 27, Clause 1 of the Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by judges defined by the Constitution and laws. A Supreme Court official expressed concern that selecting judges for specific cases post facto would lead to constitutional challenges from defendants. They also noted that the Democratic Party’s bill exacerbates worries by enhancing the Chief Justice’s power in judicial assignment affairs.
, The rule of suspending new case assignments for the courts handling major cases, as outlined in the guidelines, already exists. Under current guidelines, if concentrated hearings are necessary, the court can request to halt new case assignments. The Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Agreement Division 25, which is handling the treason case, has also stopped receiving new cases.
, Criticism has emerged that, faced with growing judicial criticism and the potential realization of ruling party reforms like increasing Supreme Court Justices, the Supreme Court might be attempting a last-resort measure by establishing a “specialized court” in name only. Lawyer Noh Hee-bum, formerly a constitutional researcher, remarked that the judiciary ignored the need for action until they seemed likely to avoid legislation by addressing constitutionality concerns.